Anatta
2 min readJan 16, 2021

--

Just like the Gaia Hypothesis, I don't believe this is a serious attempt at science. He is building on the Gaia Hypothesis by trying to anthropomorphize the earth to the point that we actually grant "Gaia" human rights. To me, this jumps the shark: he's stretching a metaphor beyond its breaking point. While I believe he has good intentions, he has weak arguments that completely rely on the emotional claims generated by the Gaia Hypothesis. If you don't anthropomorphize the earth into this mythical living creature called Gaia, then his argument built on extending that metaphor completely falls flat. It looks just as ridiculous as you make it out to be.

Keep in mind that he even admits that his goals are political and that he is an "earth lawyer" advocating for change in our policies toward the environment. Political opinions are based on emotional arguments. Yeah, I know you believe they shouldn't be, and that everyone should be rational, contemplative, unbiased, and stoic, but that isn't how the world actually works. As Trump recently reminded us, political arguments don't need to be based on facts or reality to be effective. Further, environmental activists won't care the slightest whether or not his arguments are sound as long as it furthers their goals. In politics, nearly all partisans and policy advocates believe the end justifies the means. It doesn't matter to them what lies are peddled in pursuit of the greater good -- and this is true on both sides of the political spectrum, it's just more glaringly obvious on the US political right currently, but the moment the political left feels they have the power, they too will use cancel culture bullshit to bulldoze their enemies too.

--

--

Anatta
Anatta

Written by Anatta

Buddhist practitioner and writer. My autistic son is the focus of my spiritual practice. He inspires me with his love and companionship.

Responses (1)